About your Search

20130211
20130219
STATION
MSNBC 7
MSNBCW 7
CSPAN 4
CNN 2
CNNW 2
CSPAN2 2
FBC 2
KPIX (CBS) 2
CNBC 1
WJZ (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 34
Search Results 0 to 33 of about 34 (some duplicates have been removed)
magazine" the latest from david ignatius of the "washington post," tom ricks of "foreign policy," and state department correspondent margaret brennan. we'll round it up on the with amy walt are aim amy walter, michael gerson, and our political director john dickerson. from out in space to here on earth, this is "face the nation." captioning sponsored by cbs from cbs news in washington, "face the nation" with bob schieffer. >> schieffer: and good morning, again on a day when there is no shortage of questions. we welcome dennis mcdonough president obama's me chief of staff, who i presume has brought many answers with him this morning. nice to have you. >> thanks for having me, bob. i'm really looking forward to it. >> schieffer: the sequester these draconian across-the-board spending cuts that are supposed to go into effect march 1. it appears to me that this is anything to happen. it looks to as if both the president and the congressional leaders have given up on each other. can this possibly happen? >> well, we've not give know up on this, bob and the reason we've not given up on this is be
policy front, some of the best foreign policy reporters in the business. david ignatius is with the "washington post," of course. tom ricks used to work for the "poat" is now contributing editor to "foreign policy" magazine and margaret brennan is our cbs news state department correspondent. before we get to foreign subjects here on earth, i want to talk about matters from outer space, and that meteorite that fell over siberia and injured over 1,000 people. so we're going back to new york to talk with the science editor and senior editor of "time" magazine jeffrey chewinger. jeffrey, let me start with the obvious. this thing caught our attention. there's no question about that. should we be worried about this? do these things pose a danger to those of us here on earth? >> well, they do and they don't. there's some comfort to be takenarchs we report in "time" magazine this week, that the earth has been playing in traffic for about 4 billion years now especially the time calmed the heavy bombardment period when the solar system hadn't quite acreeded yet. even today, every
foreign policy record. which is worse? >> i tell you one thing, i think boehner has his own internal problems and that he shouldn't run out there and get in the president's way because in doing that he's getting in the american people's way. i think it's time that people want to see us go above party and think in terms of our country. i think they're exhausted at the partisan politics and now is the time to rembuild america and moe forward. >> i thought it was speaker bain mother didn't have the guts to do a grand bargain deal with the president because he was frightened of eric cantor in 2011. now he's saying it's the president who doesn't have the guts. i mean, this is total revisionism, isn't it? >> well, you can see that boehner wants everyone to respond to the president, the tea party, the republican party. if there was a moderate part of the republican party, i guess there will be a chance to respond, too. i don't really think that boehner is speaking for the american people or the republicans for that matter. i think that he is trying to keep these primaries -- tea party prima
. john, what do you think? >> he will talk about foreign policy. forbes policy will not be the thrust of the speech. jobs, the economy will be. but when he talks about foreign policy, it's a pretty safe bet north korea will be on his mind. the president set to give that address at 9:00 eastern time. reports indicate that he may do a little bit more finger pointing this time than reaching across the aisle. congressman adam kinzinger, a republican from ill. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> we're getting previews about how the president may sound tonig, glen thrush of politico says don't expect anything like the call for peaceful collaboration that addressed the joint congress in 2009. >> month of the same. i think this is an opportunity. the president has an amazing opportunity to call republicans and democrats together to say both sides have to accept things they don't want in order to accept the problems in the country and for future generations. that's what's missing, the discussion of what happens next with the next generation of americans and, unfortunately,
, had choice words for the president's foreign policy team. i'm not sure i agree with that. in "the new york times," a great must-read, quietly killing a consumer watchdog. it's how the republicans are just doing everything they can not to have the consumer financial protection bureau that was created by elizabeth warren under president obama actually function because it would keep them, quite frankly, from being able to get their money from all their donors on wall street. and they do not want to lose the people who helped them out. so they want to make sure that the consumer suffers so that they can gain politically. it's a good one. take a look at it. coming up -- >> we're also going to talk about nancy pelosi saying we don't have a spending problem, and the problem with medicare is not medicare. we've got a lot to talk about straight ahead. >> gail collins of "the new york times" joins us straight ahead. >> she's got a great column. >> i love it. you're watching "morning joe" brewed by starbucks. humans. even when we cross our t's and dot our i's, we still run into problems. namely,
is that it's happening in the context of foreign policy. here you have a defense secretary who's being filibustered, at the same time that there's a possibility filibuster as the cia director. i do think that ultimately, these political fights don't happen in a vacuum, all of the things that john harwood just said about the wind being at the president's back is going to end up meaning that he's going to get a deferment. >> and chuck hagel, if he's confirmed will attend a nato conference. and if not, panetta will have to step in there. >> and that's the pressure that's going to have to come to bear for the republicans, at the end of the day, this has real impact if the president doesn't have a confirmed secretary of defense. >> some of the republicans have tried to, i don't know if it's splitting hairs or if they're embarrassed by the use of the word filibuster, but they're attempting to describe this as something other than that. >> this is not a filibuster, i keep getting stopped by people out in the hall, oh, we're going to filibuster, who's going to filibuster. it's not a filibuster
: the president has two big foreign policies issues he needs to tackle tonight including one we just learned about this morning. can you fill us in on what to expect? >> you can expect some reference to north korea, but don't look for anything new or anything that is going to upset the apple cart as far as the administration believes that as far as north korea is concerned there is sufficient pressure to contain the north korea from the japanese and particularly the chinese in the region. don't look for any new policy from the president on that. afghanistan, this is the president's battle to the pentagon, he's going to pull troops out of afghanistan at a faster pace than his military advisers suggested. he's looking to cut the force in half by 2013. that is quicker than the pentagon officials said they thought would be prudent. >> john: wow, a visit 13-year war. the president is expected to call for compromise and reach common ground but isn't he using congress as a background while talking beyond them and asking voters to pressure congressmen into giving what he wants? isn't that how they perceiv
of vigorous debate over foreign policy and penhanced interrogation. we discussed the criticism. bush administration's record. the obama administration if they were listening to you now, as they -- >> i doubt it. >> they would say, you know what one of our foreign policy successes is, it was a terrible attitude toward the united states because of iraq. we've had to rebuild confidence in the united states. that was the legacy of the bush administration. >> and the question is? >> what do you say to that? >> well -- >> he claimed that as a single lar foreign policy achievement. >> i think the president came to power with a world view that's different. >> how? >> the sense that he wanted to reduce u.s. influence in the world, wanted to take us down a peg, that he felt -- >> he hasn't said that he wants to reduce u.s. influence in the world. >> no, but -- >> never have i heard him say i want to reduce the u.s. influence in the world. >> you never heard him call himself a liberal before the election. >> everything that comes out of you today is a legitimate patriotic se
of foreign policy, and if you look at the fact that he has ended in the war in iraq, he has meandering towards ending the war in afghanistan, he's allowing the pentagon, and you've got to remember when you look at the pentagon, you're looking at an institution that has the fine motor skills of a dinosaur. it takes the pentagon a long time to put together a timetable such as for withdraw. all obama has to do, and i know it's not this simple, but i would look at the experience, came in in 1995, gave the speech in 1996, announcing the bleeding wound, he had nazis tell schulz we were getting out and the military had a year to turn it around, and they wouldn't be able to. 88, they announced the timetable, 89 they were gone. we need to do something similar. military's had its chances. we had 11 commanders in afghanistan in 11 years. look at thomas rick's book "the generals" that devotes a lot of attention to this. that's not a war where we can be successful. it's not the kind of military we have. there's no military that's ever been successful in a counter insurgency, and not only do they ha
political thought when it comes to foreign policy. i think that's fair too. so i think that's what the senate is supposed to do. they're supposed to advise and consent. i think john mccain is doing it exactly like he should do it. he has problems with it, but he's going to let the president put his person in charge. i thought mccain was very fair there. mark? you take some of the things he said in the past, they're pretty bad, but he circled back. he's talked to lindsey. he's assured some other people that those are not his positions today. >> senator hagel has really big shoes to fill. the president's first two defense secretaries, fantastic. worked well with the hill, worked well with the pentagon. i think senator mccain, unlike some of the other critics that chuck hagel, has focused on the things where there really are questions. >> and by the way, again, i support chuck hagel. but they're very legitimate questions. we have to sort out some of the hyperbolic attacks, which are just shameful, versus responsible concerns. john mccain, i felt, was really responsible yesterday, took
are republicans trying to subvert the foreign policy of the united states over an old and bitter grudge? let's bring in ari melber and democrat strategist julian ep sto epstein. what is senator mccain's problem? is he trying to defend a mode okur president bush or is he trying to defend a failed war in iraq? >> i think it's more iraq where we know senator mccain has long stood by our presence there and adding troops there, but bottom line if you take this as the mccain filibuster standard, then no one in any democratic administration ever gets a vote because, guess what? a lot of them have good faith and i think well-grounded disagreements with george w. bush. so this cannot be the standard. it's not defensible on its own terms and that's the problem. they are erecting a supermajority hurdle for all of this legislation and all of these nominees. this is an old problem from the way the republicans have been acting and it doesn't stand up because by this standard again you would not let anyone serve in government that you di agreed with. >> but it's based on a grudge. it's based on a bitter gr
in the form of north korea, foreign policy, a standoff in california tonight, the gun debate. >> the gun debate is one that's thrust itself into the nation's attention span, and the president's agenda, and this is going to only encourage that, but really the tone everybody is looking for is his tone vis-a-vis republicans. the inaugural, he had his elbows out a little bit. he was very newly confident just coming off that re-election. people will be watching to see how aggressive and confrontational he will be with them on the deficit, on the investment proposals he's going to make tonight which are modest but, nonetheless, are there. and on immigration, which is one way republicans are coming his way. >> larry kudlow, tonight you talked about the line between being assertive and confident and overreach. where is that tonight? >> that's a good question. a lot of people hope he will be more centrist including me so he can make a deal. there are a lot of deals out there that need to be made. somewhere in this, carl, i'm looking for a real pro-growth policy measure. maybe i'm wishing against
emergency to deal with this threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states. we are in the process of winding down the sanctions in response to developments in libya, including the fall of gaddafi and his government and the establishment of the democratically elected government. we are working closely with the new libyan government and with the international community to effectively and appropriately ease restrictions on sanctions, entities, including by taking actions consistent with the u.n. secretary council's decision to lift sanctions against the central bank of libya and to other entities on december 16, 2011. the situation in libya, however, continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states, and we need to protect against this threat and a diversion of assets were abused by certain members of gaddafi's family and other former regime officials. therefore, i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency with respect to libya. signed barack obama, the white house, f
will be back home by this time yex neanext year. it is a big foreign policy to be made, it's expected to be largely about economic issues and the middle class. >> what do you think, is it going to be partisan or more of an olive branch? >> i don't think it will be either, if i can be so bold as to take something that you're not offering a choice that you're not offering. >> you may take it as always. >> i think he will be assertive. i think he will not perceive, he and the white house will not perceive what he's saying as overtly confrontational. i'm sure it will be interpreted that way. i don't anticipate a big olive branch of a speech. he'll talk about common sense measures republicans have supported in the past and stlu as bipartisan. >> the agenda on immigration, gun control, climate by definition, pre-stage conflict with republicans who are ambivalent at best about moving forward on anything. on the other hand, on the big issue of the debt and deficit, since the summer of 2011 he has signaled that he is willing to make a big deal, including some elements, maybe less than two year
was dismissive, on climate change, which was dismissive. i think there were two sentences on foreign policy. i think you have to say more about the position of the united states and the world. >> the middle east is in flames right now. you should probably talk about it. >> you have to be self-aware. and i think of chris christie, who i believe, unless i remember incorrectly, turned it down. >> he's a smart man, chris christie, and he's in the 70s. >> he turned this one down? >> not this one. >> i have a question that perhaps john heilemann can answer. marco rubio's a smart guy, an attractive guy, an articulate guy with a terrific life story. why is it that in an age in the past few months when the republicans have been talking about broadening the base of the party, speaking to a larger audience, why is it that he spent so much time last night seemingly preaching to the choir rather than talking to the country? >> that's a good point. >> well, you know, mike, i think he points out the awkward intraparty politics that the republicans now face. you know, you have a party that does need to broade
stare industrial complex and how it hurts our country to have those people trying to do our foreign policy. the next thing i wanted to say was the reason rubio's thing on the t.v. there went so viral and everybody watched it 1,000 times is because he acted like he was shoplifting the water from a convenience store. [ laughter ] stephanie: he did. i said it looked like winona ryder on the security camera the. hmm? total deer in the headlights. >> he was in part talking about how the c.i.a., against his wishes sent up another u.2 flight because he kruschev were to meet. the c.i. asacriad it up. stephanie: historical fun fact. and the fact i learned from that, the largest percentage of people that want to date me and kiss me, really straight, old drunk men. >> sure. stephanie: story of my life. >> if he was 40 years younger that would make him 90. stephanie: greg writes steph. >> if i was 40 years younger i'd remember where i left my cheese. >> i want to make sure you waited for me when i got back from the peliponesian war. the senate is waiting because they don't have all of hagel's f
more. foreign policy, it is 51% to 37%. theresa, nevada. caller: regarding president obama using executive orders to go around the republicans in the house, i am all for it. i am aware that this is a two- party democracy and we need republicans to be reasonable working party, but they have not been. the president has no choice but to go around them. john boehner has walked away. i am frustrated and the country is frustrated, other democrats are frustrated and scared. i am scared of the things they're willing to do to our country. he is doing what he has to do. i am all for his proposals, all for clean energy and comprehensive immigration, i am for gun legislation. i am for all of them. i am center-left, that is progressive. i think the country is definitely going progressive. i do not understand where the republicans want to obstruct and go with their small mindedness and small government proposals that they think that they can push through on the american people that i do not think are very popular. host: we have a different opinion from twitter. host: david wright's in on twitt
the second amendment rights of law-abiding americans is not the way to do it. on foreign policy, america continues to be indispensable to the low blow -- global liberty, poverty, and safeguarding human rights. the world is a better place when america is the start station on earth, but we cannot remain powerful if we don't have an economy that can afford it. in the ssort time that i have been here in washington nothing has frustrated me more than false choices like the one the president laid out tonight. the choice is not just between big government or big business. what we need is accountable, efficient, effective government that allows small and new businesses to create more middle-class jobs. we don't have to raise taxes to avoid the president's devastating cuts to our military. republicans have passed a plan that replaces these cats with irresponsible spending reforms in order to balance our budget the trust is not have to be either has it -- higher taxes are dramatic benefit cuts for those in need. instead we should grow our economy so we could create the taxpayers, not taxes and so
" focusing on foreign policies issues ahead on capitol hill. host: and now on your screen is representative elliot engel, democrat of new york and in the 113th congress the ranking member, the top democrat on the foreign affairs committee. representative engel, as always, we appreciate you being on the "washington journal." from that perch in the foreign affairs committee, what's your -- what are some of your issues this year that you'd like to confront? guest: well, obviously the president spoke at the state of the union the other night, talked about winding down the war in afghanistan finally and removing american troops. when the troops are actually all removed, still negotiations between us and the afghanis about what american presence will be afterwards. but that's, i think, something that the american people are tired of and happy to see winding down. we also, of course, have the volatile middle east, where we have the arab spring and egypt and syria, of course, in the throes of a civil war. assad brutally killing his own people. clearly he's going to go. the question is who comes in
in iraq, the decision to help prevent our losing that war when he said was the most dangerous foreign policy blunder since vietnam. it's quite obvious now that that statement was his tree i don't know nick, woe -- was histrionic, woefully uninformed and absurd. i didn't raise it at senator hagel's hearing for an i told you so moment but to determine he if senator hagel recognizes he was in error. and more importantly, if that recognition informs his judgment today. i wanted to know if he had learned from his mistakes. unfortunately, i'm not confident that he has. after two weeks of reviewing his record, my concerns about whether senator hagel is ready to serve as secretary of defense have not diminished. nothing in senator hagel's background indicates that he would effectively manage the department of defense. in today's unprecedented environment of fiscal uncertainty, ensuring that defense investment decisions affecting an agency as massive and unwieldy as the department of defense do not adversely impact our military readiness is enormously challenging. it requires that the secretar
. we must effectively deal with the rise of violence in our country. on foreign policy, america continues to be first in property and safe guarding human rights. the world is a better place when america is the strongest nation on earth. we can't remain powerful if we don't have a economy that can afford it. in the short time i've been in washington, nothing has been more difficult than the choices. the choice is not just between big government or business. what we need is accountable and efficient and effective government that allows small and new businesses to create more middle class jobs. we don't have to raise taxes to avoid the president's devastating cuts to our military. republicans passed a plan that replaced these cuts with responsible spending reforms. in order to balance our budget the choice doesn't have to be higher taxes or dramatic benefit cuts for those in need, instead we should grow our economy so we can create new taxpayers, not new taxes. so our government can afford to help others who truly cannot help themselves. and the truth is every problem can't be solv
certainly want better trade policies. i want more support and subsidies for american manufacturers rather than for foreign manufacturers but you can make sure the federal government is being a good steward of taxpayer dollars and using them to buy for from americans rather than foreign companies. host: 1 last tweet -- guest: you will never stop everyone from buying an illegal gun. that is always the case with laws we pass. if you want laws the one that% air tight, we should not pass anything. we're trying to cut down on the number of illegal sales oe
third nuclear test overnight. the therapy of the house foreign affairs committee just weighed in. he says the obama administration must replace its failed north korean policy with one that is energetic, creative and focused on crippling the kim regime's military capabilities through stringent sanctions. senior foreign affairs correspondent greg palkot has the late nest london. you moved from the pope's story to this world crisis now, greg. >> yeah, crazy week. the world, in fact, got a bit more dangerous overnight. u.n. officials, i was speaking to a few minutes ago, confirmed to me that they believe the north korea has tested yet another nuclear device. but most importantly, they tell me this device is twice as powerful as the one they detonated in 2009. they base that on seismic measurements they're taking from the test site. north korea today claiming they have tested a smaller, more sophisticated device, which means, according to my contacts in north korea and korea that i've been speaking to, this could be better put on top of a missile. remember, in december, north korea had th
, they are being replayed it. what you have to watch is whether or not countries start embracing policies. not just in terms. dagen: what country concerned to the most? brazil? >> yes. rozelle is one that i am really watching. they are imposing a tax on foreign holders of various securities that they may have. a lot of south american countries have a spotty history. one area that i am actually finding some encouragement in is china. i think most people recognize that china has a history of composing control. they are beginning to relax those controls. i think there may be some pretty good investment opportunities over there. dagen: thank you so much for weighing in on what is always a subject. in facebook, they are revealing it has been a target of a series of attacks on employee computers. shibani joshi joins us with the very latest on this. shibani: pretty scary stuff. there are a billion people on facebook posting what we presume are private photos and videos. facebook did acknowledge via a blog post that it was on the receiving end of a cyber attack. here is, basically, the breath of what happe
Search Results 0 to 33 of about 34 (some duplicates have been removed)